If the technology
works as Aereo
claims, it’s worth
a fortune in licensing fees. So why go a
service-launch route?

It makes no sense.

I have yet to see analysis by an
independent engineering team explaining
how Aereo’s tiny antennas work
individually rather than as a master
antenna system, as many engineers
tell me it would. This is the premise on
which Aereo’s entire legal argument
rests. Independent confirmation would
dismantle the lawsuits. So why is Aereo
not willing to subject the technology to
independent analysis? Why not let the
skeptics run a few tests? It would be
cheaper than shoveling money at lawyers.

It also would be cheaper than offering
Aereo as a service. Aereo’s storage and
processing costs likely exceed the $8,
20-hour monthly subscription fee by
as much as 60 percent. (Using storage
cost figures made public by Aereo and
Amazon’s on-demand processing fees.)
Aereo may or may not do better than
Amazon’s processing costs, but adding
in infrastructure and marketing costs still
begs the question: How is this making
money?

Why not license it to programmers
rather than go to such great lengths to
circumvent copyright law? The cost to
reach revenue from licensing would be a
tiny fraction of constructing infrastructure
on a market-by-market basis, as Aereo’s
now doing. Aereo investors have thrown
in to the tune of $59 million. “Investors”
being namely Barry Diller, who’s current
empire is built on Internet advertising.
The bigger question than Aereo’s legality
is its raison d’etre. I assure you that it
ain’t about no poor, wretched consumer’s
“right” to free TV, the very thing the
wireless and consumer electronics lobbies
are trying to do away with.

If nothing else, Aereo does shine
a light on the gaping chasm that is
content copyright law in the age of the
Internet. The problem with that is no one
knows how to bridge that gap or has the
motivation to try. (Comments are not publishing properly, so I'll try to keep up by simply adding them to the bottom of this post, newest first. ~ DMc)

Comments [sic]...Deborah -- The reason
Aereo won't allow its technology to be properly diligenced is that it wouldn't
survive such a scrubbing. As described, Aereo has built a Faraday Cage (look it
up)...the physics are inescapable. I know of no one who is suggesting that the
broadcast networks are the "guys in the white hats" on this matter.
They are every bit as greedy grubbers as Barry Diller. There ain't no
"good guys" in this soap opera. It's copyright law that's at stake
here - and that is very much worth the fight. And this law (the DMCA as it's
now called) is not some flipping "black art" - it is only a
"gaping chasm" for those who are willfully ignorant of understanding
its structure and purposes. WTF does "bridge the gap" have to do with
anything? You want the right to perform copyrighted works, you negotiate a
license to do so. No rocket science, no brain surgery. Pay to play or go away.
And Aereo's fatal problem is that it refused to pay!
***** You're
so right. As suggested some time ago, Barry has too much money and is bored.
But what's wrong with throwing that money to lawyers? We're nice folks, too! In
this case, I should note, I don't think there's even much of a
"chasm" regarding copyright law. We'll see, but I don't think the
Supreme Court will have too much trouble interpreting the current law as
including obligations that Aereo says would close down its non-existent
business plan.
***** I
agree with Ms. McAdams on the questionably profitable nature of the Aereo
enterprise. However, it is my view that Aereo isn't REALLY suggesting that each
individual subscriber has their own little antenna; rather, they are exploiting
a hole in copyright law that permits them to argue that such a scheme is at
least conceivable, even if not currently practicable with prevailing
technology. Then, if the courts find that their method is legally permissible,
they can seek more sophisticated methods of actually making sure that it can
actually be done. If they didn't at least test the law, then their desire to
create a system that really did give everyone their own little antenna (or
whatever other methodology that now or in the future will be dreamed up) would be
vitiated.
***** Or
Aereo wants to be the next Netflix, a ubiquitous product that lots of people
want to pay for. With Moore's Law, what is breakeven or a little worse today
can become enormously profitable in a few years, and economies of scale can
only help.
***** It
is obvious there is a hidden agenda at work. This is being forced to be a
success in spite of all the evidence to the opposite. The physics of the
antenna just does work out to a single antenna per subscriber. The size is not
even close to being an efficient antenna for the tv channels. True a piece of
random length wire can be an antenna if flooded with enough signal. I am
certain this is the case here. However, I want to see the one antenna
disconnected and see that one subscribers tv set go dark. Will not happen. Why?
Because the internet is NOT an RF distribution cable system. You can not pickup
channel 2 on the antenna at a distant point and have the RF signal travel down
the internet to the TV set and connect to the antenna jack on the TV set. It
will not work. You need to receive the signal at the "head end"
convert it to a stream of digits send the digits to computers that will allow
it to stream in a new form on the internet, then a computer at the receiving
end must connect to the sending computer, gather the digits from the sending
computer and reassemble them into a video file that then can be converted to a
video signal and then output to a screen/monitor. This will of course be of a
lesser bandwidth than the original transmitted signal. I believe the copyright
states that one is not allowed to distribute, modify or retransmit, in any form
without permission. Here is a news flash for ya, taking a higher bandwidth
signal, receiving it, demodulating it, converting it to a bit stream and then
sending it out via an internet connection and for a profit, is in violation of
ALL of these conditions, as it is a modification/conversion of the original
signal, it is a redistribution of the original signal and these guys are making
a revenue stream off of copyrighted material that has been paid for by the
broadcaster for s specific market. For further reading on this one needs to go
to this web address http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat61500.html This is not
a new issue and was addressed by congress in 2000. or look here
http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/why-a-loss-for-aereo-wouldnt-threaten-cloud-services-1201149611/
Aereo states the antennas are NOT dedicated to each subscriber. Respectfully
Submitted By A Frozen Engineer
***** You
hit the nail square on. Like the Watergate conversation, "follow the
money...".
***** Could
perhaps the point be to put thumbs on the scales of the TV stations as they
weigh whether to keep their spectrum or fold and auction it? $59 mil ain't much
in that context, right?
***** Aereo's
antennas may not have been subject to analysis by an independent engineering
team, but they were subject to analysis by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs attempted
to challenge the independent functioning of the antennas in district court, and
failed, ultimately not even bringing their expert to testify in the hearing,
and dropping the issues. In fact, testimony indicated that signals received at
the Aereo facility had 30 dB of headroom, and plaintiff's expert conceded that
sufficient signal strength would overcome all the problems plaintiff's
postulated might exist for small antennas. (Tough to imagine that 30 dB of
headroom is sufficient signal strength.) Personally, I question the economics
(and sensibility) of Aereo, also -- but your alternative suggestion makes no
more sense. If Aereo's technology is uneconomic to operate, then it's worth
pretty much nothing from a licensing standpoint. Furthermore, the big boys
aren't going to adopt Aereo-style delivery anytime soon, because it's
unquestionably uneconomic to adopt such for mass deployment. The economics are
questionable for an OTT provider like Aereo. For a facilities-based provider,
the economics aren't questionable, they're a complete non-starter for the
foreseeable future. 3/27/2014
*****I'm
not sure the point of this opinion piece. The primary argument seems to be that
Aereo hasn't every been independently tested and therefore must be acting as a
master antenna. Except that Aereo WAS tested, repeatedly by the plaintiffs and
the individual antennas were verified. This is such a non-starter that the
plaintiffs dropped this line of argument after the first appeal. Further, the
writer has little to no knowledge of cloud pricing. Amazon VM charges are very
low and just got lower yesterday. Storage is dirty cheap these days too. More
importantly, what difference does it make? Isn't that really Barry Dillers
concern?

Print

Email

Share

Comments

Post New CommentIf you are already a member, or would like to receive email alerts as new comments are
made, please login or register.

Enter the code shown above:

(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above
image, reload the page to generate a new one.)

Deborah -- The reason Aereo won't allow its technology to be properly diligenced is that it wouldn't survive such a scrubbing. As described, Aereo has built a Faraday Cage (look it up)...the physics are inescapable.
I know of no one who is suggesting that the broadcast networks are the "guys in the white hats" on this matter. They are every bit as greedy grubbers as Barry Diller. There ain't no "good guys" in this soap opera.
It's copyright law that's at stake here - and that is very much worth the fight. And this law (the DMCA as it's now called) is not some flipping "black art" - it is only a "gaping chasm" for those who are willfully ignorant of understanding its structure and purposes. WTF does "bridge the gap" have to do with anything? You want the right to perform copyrighted works, you negotiate a license to do so. No rocket science, no brain surgery. Pay to play or go away. And Aereo's fatal problem is that it refused to pay!

I'm not sure the point of this opinion piece. The primary argument seems to be that Aereo hasn't every been independently tested and therefore must be acting as a master antenna. Except that Aereo WAS tested, repeatedly by the plaintiffs and the individual antennas were verified. This is such a non-starter that the plaintiffs dropped this line of argument after the first appeal. Further, the writer has little to no knowledge of cloud pricing. Amazon VM charges are very low and just got lower yesterday. Storage is dirty cheap these days too. More importantly, what difference does it make? Isn't that really Barry Dillers concern?

Aereo's antennas may not have been subject to analysis by an independent engineering team, but they were subject to analysis by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs attempted to challenge the independent functioning of the antennas in district court, and failed, ultimately not even bringing their expert to testify in the hearing, and dropping the issues.
In fact, testimony indicated that signals received at the Aereo facility had 30 dB of headroom, and plaintiff's expert conceded that sufficient signal strength would overcome all the problems plaintiff's postulated might exist for small antennas. (Tough to imagine that 30 dB of headroom is sufficient signal strength.)
Personally, I question the economics (and sensibility) of Aereo, also -- but your alternative suggestion makes no more sense. If Aereo's technology is uneconomic to operate, then it's worth pretty much nothing from a licensing standpoint.
Furthermore, the big boys aren't going to adopt Aereo-style delivery anytime soon, because it's unquestionably uneconomic to adopt such for mass deployment. The economics are questionable for an OTT provider like Aereo. For a facilities-based provider, the economics aren't questionable, they're a complete non-starter for the foreseeable future.

It is obvious there is a hidden agenda at work. This is being forced to be a success in spite of all the evidence to the opposite. The physics of the antenna just does work out to a single antenna per subscriber. The size is not even close to being an efficient antenna for the tv channels. True a piece of random length wire can be an antenna if flooded with enough signal. I am certain this is the case here. However, I want to see the one antenna disconnected and see that one subscribers tv set go dark. Will not happen. Why? Because the internet is NOT an RF distribution cable system. You can not pickup channel 2 on the antenna at a distant point and have the RF signal travel down the internet to the TV set and connect to the antenna jack on the TV set. It will not work. You need to receive the signal at the "head end" convert it to a stream of digits send the digits to computers that will allow it to stream in a new form on the internet, then a computer at the receiving end must connect to the sending computer, gather the digits from the sending computer and reassemble them into a video file that then can be converted to a video signal and then output to a screen/monitor. This will of course be of a lesser bandwidth than the original transmitted signal.
I believe the copyright states that one is not allowed to distribute, modify or retransmit, in any form without permission. Here is a news flash for ya, taking a higher bandwidth signal, receiving it, demodulating it, converting it to a bit stream and then sending it out via an internet connection and for a profit, is in violation of ALL of these conditions, as it is a modification/conversion of the original signal, it is a redistribution of the original signal and these guys are making a revenue stream off of copyrighted material that has been paid for by the broadcaster for s specific market.
For further reading on this one needs to go to this web address
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat61500.html
This is not a new issue and was addressed by congress in 2000.
or look here
http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/why-a-loss-for-aereo-wouldnt-threaten-cloud-services-1201149611/
Aereo states the antennas are NOT dedicated to each subscriber.
Respectfully Submitted By
A Frozen Engineer

Or Aereo wants to be the next Netflix, a ubiquitous product that lots of people want to pay for. With Moore's Law, what is breakeven or a little worse today can become enormously profitable in a few years, and economies of scale can only help.

I agree with Ms. McAdams on the questionably profitable nature of the Aereo enterprise. However, it is my view that Aereo isn't REALLY suggesting that each individual subscriber has their own little antenna; rather, they are exploiting a hole in copyright law that permits them to argue that such a scheme is at least conceivable, even if not currently practicable with prevailing technology. Then, if the courts find that their method is legally permissible, they can seek more sophisticated methods of actually making sure that it can actually be done. If they didn't at least test the law, then their desire to create a system that really did give everyone their own little antenna (or whatever other methodology that now or in the future will be dreamed up) would be vitiated.

You're so right. As suggested some time ago, Barry has too much money and is bored. But what's wrong with throwing that money to lawyers? We're nice folks, too! In this case, I should note, I don't think there's even much of a "chasm" regarding copyright law. We'll see, but I don't think the Supreme Court will have too much trouble interpreting the current law as including obligations that Aereo says would close down its non-existent business plan.

If the producer of a program wants to retain control of their product they should not be casting it freely into the air to the public on a broadcast station. This is where I feel the copyright issues are flawed - openly give something away for free then expect to remain in control of it.
What's next - charge Radio Shack, Channel Master and Winegard and other antenna manufacturers a fee for selling antennas that receive and distribute the over the air signal? Seems they are also technically in violation of collecting and distributing the these copyrighted signals.
This is the only industry I have ever seen where the business model is inverted - if the broadcaster offerings were physically tangible I wonder if they would require FedEx, UPS and or the US mail to pay them some fee for the 'pleasure' to deliver their packages to their audience? Of course the shipper would then have to charge the customer to capture the costs incurred for the delivery - and now an added fee for the broadcaster charge.

The FAA’s current rules and proposed ban on flight over people, requirement of visual line of sight and restriction on nighttime flying, effectively prohibit broadcasters from using UAS for newsgathering. ~ WMUR-TV General Manager Jeff Bartlett